I'm planning to rebase the entire chart to a more modern card. Any suggestions on which card to use as the base performance?

I was thinking either the 9600GT or 8800GT ? It should make the chart easier to glance at & know the performance boost of the newer cards.

for example, say I own the 9600GT (and I do).. and I'm thinking about upgrading to the 4870. Currently looking at the chart is requires some math to figure out the average performance boost based purely on the scores (521.84 to 974.52). It is actually a jump of 86.7% but that would be much easier to determine if the 9600 GT were the base for the chart at 100. Then the scores would be 100.00 to approx 186.7, for example.

I'm open to suggestions on which card to use as the rebase point. I figured 8800GT or 9600GT since I figured a lot of us had one of those two cards. What I dont like about the 8800GT is there are way too many freaking versions.

You'll probably get better (direct) comparisons if you use the 9600GT -- I think TR uses a 9800GT instead of an 8800GT now, and while it's presumably the same it might vary slightly, and it'll be more work.

You'll probably get better (direct) comparisons if you use the 9600GT -- I think TR uses a 9800GT instead of an 8800GT now, and while it's presumably the same it might vary slightly, and it'll be more work.

Though since I have an 8800GT I'd prefer if you used that.

done.

note for the ATI vs Nvidia comparisons.. the newest review uses different games than the last few reviews. In the newest review Nvidia performs better against ATI then in the previous few reviews due to the different games. However, I did not recalculate all scores.. merely added the GTX 295, 285 & HD 4850 X2.

The HD 4850 X2 was compared using the new scores, so it is accurate vs the Nvidia cards but would be a higher score vs the other ATI cards. That makes it seem like an even better deal.

Not sure if or when I'll recalc all with the newest games. However, just note that the latest Nvidia scores would all be a few points higher vs the ATI cards if using the newest review for all of them.

$199.99 shipped AMIR with free Far Cry2, on an OCd version that would lengthen the lead of the GTX260.

Like I said, 4870 1GB costs more, performs less, and your post makes it look like the price/performance leader. This does a disservice to the readers of this board who presumably want the best deal for their money.

It also leaves CUDA (video transcoding, home supercomputer), PhysX (more immersive, realistic games), and 3D Vision (on a whole different plane of immersion) out of the value equation, and these are huge factors that "should" make the GTX260 cost more because it has more flexibility. Yet it costs significantly less.

NVIDIA Focus GroupNVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the Members.

You missed that the GeForce GTX260 (216SP, overclocked) that TR reviewed is already significantly overclocked from the first two lower-priced stock cards that you linked. There's a small disclaimer in the middle of some unrelated text on page 5 of the review:

Damage wrote:

Also, please note that several of the cards we tested have higher clock speeds than the baselines established by AMD and Nvidia. The EVGA GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 card we tested runs faster than stock, as does the Asus GTX 285 and the Asus Radeon HD 4850.

Of course, when you look at the charts, there's no indication that these are overclocked cards. This confusion is why I continue to believe that reviewers should always benchmark graphics cards at stock speeds. If they want to add overclocked results, that's fine, but the base stock performance always needs to be included.

This is the most recent video card review under "GPU" on this website.

The GTX260 wins every single game in this review over the HD4870 1GB, yet your chart shows the 260 as significantly behind and your text says "it may have gone up slightly". "Slightly"?

Even in the review you link to the "GTX260" does not beat the 4870 1GB in "ever single game". Look at the 1920x1200 resolution, which is the res I use unless unavailable. first game. yes, I'm making a funny.

However, the reason you're probably confused is because you see "GTX 260" in my list and assume that meant "GTX 260 Reloaded XXXTTXXFTX".

The scores for the GTX 260 in my chart are the GTX 260 as it was originally released. I have never added the reloaded one into the chart because I think the whole new release with the same name game is annoying.

The NVidia scores for all the current cards would go up a little if I recalced the entire chart because they were hurt by the RACE DRIVER: GRID game. Maybe they didn't get any optimization money?

Like I said, 4870 1GB costs more, performs less, and your post makes it look like the price/performance leader. This does a disservice to the readers of this board who presumably want the best deal for their money.

I only update the prices in monthy or so intervals. But you're still incorrect .. probably due to thinking the 4870 in my list is the 1GB version. It is not. I also never included the 1GB version in my list.

At any rate, I'll update the prices again soon and that should bump up the NVidia performance/price scores for you.

Brian_S wrote:

It also leaves CUDA (video transcoding, home supercomputer), PhysX (more immersive, realistic games), and 3D Vision (on a whole different plane of immersion) out of the value equation, and these are huge factors that "should" make the GTX260 cost more because it has more flexibility. Yet it costs significantly less.

maybe if anyone on the board was using CUDA or PhysX, I'd take that into account... probably still not though.

You missed that the GeForce GTX260 (216SP, overclocked) that TR reviewed is already significantly overclocked from the first two lower-priced stock cards that you linked. There's a small disclaimer in the middle of some unrelated text on page 5 of the review:

Damage wrote:

Also, please note that several of the cards we tested have higher clock speeds than the baselines established by AMD and Nvidia. The EVGA GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 card we tested runs faster than stock, as does the Asus GTX 285 and the Asus Radeon HD 4850.

Of course, when you look at the charts, there's no indication that these are overclocked cards. This confusion is why I continue to believe that reviewers should always benchmark graphics cards at stock speeds. If they want to add overclocked results, that's fine, but the base stock performance always needs to be included.

I did miss that.

I would say that factory OCd cards are almost the rule for NVIDIA vendors though and they are the exception for ATi vendors for whatever reason. (not to mention the cheapest card I linked to was clocked higher than the EVGA cards, and includes free Far Cry2, making it even a better deal)

Mostly I wanted to note to people this chart isn't a great representation of value.

HD4870s and GTX260s offer a largely similar gaming experience for the most part, with each brand having some games that just favor their architecture. They also each have some unique features that aren't mentioned at all.

This chart makes it look like you'd be crazy to buy a NVIDIA part, and this users post in the CPU forum makes it look like you be crazy to buy an Intel CPU. Funny thing is, Intel and NVIDIA are both the market leaders in both market share and performance.

I like my Phenom 9850BE fine, and I had a HD4850 that worked great, but these two threads are pretty misleading.

NVIDIA Focus GroupNVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the Members.

This chart makes it look like you'd be crazy to buy a NVIDIA part, and this users post in the CPU forum makes it look like you be crazy to buy an Intel CPU. Funny thing is, Intel and NVIDIA are both the market leaders in both market share and performance.

lower price will always do that because the performance does not scale with price. Basically, unless you need the extra performance, then you are silly to buy the top of the line.

actually, on second thought, I may get around to adding the GTX 260 reloaded to the chart as the original is probably not even for sale anymore.Also, the reloaded version would be roughly the same performance as the GTX 280 in my chart.. and cost less.

maybe.

probably would require a recalc of everything though.. those are annoying since every few months the games all change making direct comparison very difficult.

They're not misleading at all, they simply don't have the data you're looking for (quote "these are not the droids you're looking for"), that is, the 260 Rel with updated prices. Also, the chart does have two important bits of data you might have missed, right at the beginning: last updated at XX/XX/XX (in this case, middle of January), and "mail rebates don't count".

Your warning that with the most recent data (prices), the picture might change is certainly valid and welcome. But just saying that the whole thing is misleading simply on the count of not being current (and it's barely 1 month too) is stretching it.

danny e. wrote:

Also, the reloaded version would be roughly the same performance as the GTX 280 in my chart.

That might also be stretching it a bit It will make the 280 look like poor value though.

There is a fixed amount of intelligence on the planet, and the population keeps growing :(

probably would require a recalc of everything though.. those are annoying since every few months the games all change making direct comparison very difficult.

Taking an approach via "relative performance" would be one way to go to solve that. Let's suppose that card A, which is getting old, has a performance index of X. And then a new review comes along that happens to test new cards B and C, and also include A. A good way to solve this would be to see by how much do the B and C cards beat A in a percentage basis, and take that into account in your math.

There is a fixed amount of intelligence on the planet, and the population keeps growing :(

I changed my mind again. I'll try to get a complete recalc done in the next few weeks. This will improve Nvidia scores around 5% across the board, I believe. Not real sure, since it'll be a mess going backwards instead of forward. changing games. ugh.

Of course, that just shows some of the limitations of this kind of chart.. when you're dealing with 5 games or so, 1 game can have a significant detrimental effect if a card simply can not handle it at all .. as was the case with RACE DRIVER: GRID for all the Nvidia cards.

probably would require a recalc of everything though.. those are annoying since every few months the games all change making direct comparison very difficult.

Taking an approach via "relative performance" would be one way to go to solve that. Let's suppose that card A, which is getting old, has a performance index of X. And then a new review comes along that happens to test new cards B and C, and also include A. A good way to solve this would be to see by how much do the B and C cards beat A in a percentage basis, and take that into account in your math.

the problem is dealing with two lines of cards when the games all change.

however, you did give me an idea.. which I tried to implement a little in the latest round.. and that is that I really need to do relative perfomance twice. ATI line and Nvidia line moving forward. .. so the scores stay seperate in a way till they get meshed into the chart. That would solve the changing games problem to a large extent.

However, the reason you're probably confused is because you see "GTX 260" in my list and assume that meant "GTX 260 Reloaded XXXTTXXFTX".

That alone makes your chart misleading. You use newegg as your source, and how many weeks has it been since a 192SP GTX260 has been for sale there?

danny e. wrote:

The scores for the GTX 260 in my chart are the GTX 260 as it was originally released. I have never added the reloaded one into the chart because I think the whole new release with the same name game is annoying.

Whether you find it annoying is irrelevant if you're trying to supply usable information to readers here. AFAIK the 192SP GTX 260 has been EOL for a while, so why not use the only GTX260 that's currently in production? Only ATi themselves would compare an out of manufacture part to a current one and deem it "fair".

danny e. wrote:

The NVidia scores for all the current cards would go up a little if I recalced the entire chart because they were hurt by the RACE DRIVER: GRID game. Maybe they didn't get any optimization money?

Up to 10% performance increase in Race Driver: GRID at high resolution and AA.[/URL]

danny e. wrote:

I only update the prices in monthy or so intervals. But you're still incorrect .. probably due to thinking the 4870 in my list is the 1GB version. It is not. I also never included the 1GB version in my list. [/URL]Ouch. 512MB video cards in 2009. The stuttering when you exceed the small frame buffer needs to be taken into account for those cards, they're not really even comparable.

danny e. wrote:

maybe if anyone on the board was using CUDA or PhysX, I'd take that into account... probably still not though.

You're not in favor of folding for the cure? Or superfast video transcoding? CUDA is getting pretty mainstream with classes at Big 10 colleges, industries and scientists using it.

As far as PhysX goes, check the front page and note Mirrors Edge has sold a million copies. You don't think anyone on a gaming forum has a copy of that? How many millions of copies of UT3 sold? How many million will Cryostasis sell? Very big (as yet unannounced) April release coming. Whether you like it or not, at the end of 2009 there will be many PhysX titles available. This makes it a buying factor.

I also think people are going to start picking up on 3D Vision more, like the readers at PC Perspective:

I loaded up Unreal 2 this morning, was worth it just to see Aida in 3d. I started playing the game, now I'll probably re-play the whole thing because I was so blown away by how good it looks in 3d. I would rather play this game from 2003 in 3d than any 2008 game without it.

As the kiosks go up around the country and people start experiencing this, it will be more and more a factor.

NVIDIA Focus GroupNVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the Members.

However, the reason you're probably confused is because you see "GTX 260" in my list and assume that meant "GTX 260 Reloaded XXXTTXXFTX".

That alone makes your chart misleading. You use newegg as your source, and how many weeks has it been since a 192SP GTX260 has been for sale there?

perhaps you missed the part where my chart also lists the Voodoo 5 5500? The original GTX 260 was added when it was released. If I had to add every card Nvidia rebadged it'd be a very tedious and messy process indeed.

They're not misleading at all, they simply don't have the data you're looking for (quote "these are not the droids you're looking for"), that is, the 260 Rel with updated prices. Also, the chart does have two important bits of data you might have missed, right at the beginning: last updated at XX/XX/XX (in this case, middle of January), and "mail rebates don't count".

Your warning that with the most recent data (prices), the picture might change is certainly valid and welcome. But just saying that the whole thing is misleading simply on the count of not being current (and it's barely 1 month too) is stretching it.

danny e. wrote:

Also, the reloaded version would be roughly the same performance as the GTX 280 in my chart.

That might also be stretching it a bit It will make the 280 look like poor value though.

Thanks- and I agree.

I think my replies to Danny probably seem more terse than my spirit in writing them, and I suppose it is hard to keep up with the times and benches when performance goes up and down with drivers, new cores get released, etc..

My apologies Danny- no offense intended!

NVIDIA Focus GroupNVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the Members.

However, the reason you're probably confused is because you see "GTX 260" in my list and assume that meant "GTX 260 Reloaded XXXTTXXFTX".

That alone makes your chart misleading. You use newegg as your source, and how many weeks has it been since a 192SP GTX260 has been for sale there?

perhaps you missed the part where my chart also lists the Voodoo 5 5500? The original GTX 260 was added when it was released. If I had to add every card Nvidia rebadged it'd be a very tedious and messy process indeed.

Nope, you have to list them all, even upcoming ones.

Heh- I can appreciate the work involved keeping it current.

NVIDIA Focus GroupNVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the Members.

However, the reason you're probably confused is because you see "GTX 260" in my list and assume that meant "GTX 260 Reloaded XXXTTXXFTX".

That alone makes your chart misleading. You use newegg as your source, and how many weeks has it been since a 192SP GTX260 has been for sale there?

perhaps you missed the part where my chart also lists the Voodoo 5 5500? The original GTX 260 was added when it was released. If I had to add every card Nvidia rebadged it'd be a very tedious and messy process indeed.

my main point here is that, if there is confusion.. it's not really my fault. Nvidia shouldnt be releasing new cards with the same name.

the "GTX 260 reloaded" could have just been the GTX 265. confusion solved.

Sheesh- how bad is a guy going to feel buying that 192 for $259AMIR after he sees the 216 clocked higher at $199 AMIR? Zing!

NVIDIA Focus GroupNVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the Members.

I see that most of the trouble has solved itself, but I think I should stress one point:

Brain_S, I think it's positive that people in the manufacturers' employ come to the forums an contribute (and that includes correcting mistakes). However, the "righteous" tone set in your previous post (along with a small measure of FUD regarding CUDA/PhysX/3DGlasses) can actually hurt your manufacturer's credibility instead of improving it.

Having said that (and just before anyone is too quick on the "POST REPLY" button), I'm quite glad that you have understood that his chart by danny_e is simply a work done by him, in his spare time, with no obligations but also no support, and that he updates as much as he can. That means that it's not automagically updated with all the latest information, even though we all would like to see that.

There is a fixed amount of intelligence on the planet, and the population keeps growing :(

Now, that should help also with seeing which scores I use.I use the 1920x1200 res scores where available. If that is not available I use the next higher, never lower. In the benchies with a medium low and average, I combine the scores.

So, the two cards were inserted into the existing chart without re-doing much. I do plan to redo the chart again but not until may. For now Nvidia still gets hurt by the Race Driver: GRID scrores from a few reviews back.However, it doesnt make that much diff.

so... I'm not convinced that the game shouldnt still be having its effect because the results currently are the same as they were before. ATI dominates in that game.

Eventually I'll probably try to come up with a faster way of updating all the data at once.. but for now it's still a lot of manual work. Especially in the case of trying to go backwards from current reviews. There isnt a real easy way to do that without a lot of work.

anyways.. it is what it is for now

In May I plan to re-do the entire chart, but for now I don't have the time.